>At 12:04 AM 2/27/97 -0000, you wrote:
>>Andy Kunz <montana@FAST.NET> wrote regarding Microchip:
>>> I don't know why they don't just move over to FLASH like Atmel has done.
>>
>>But is Atmel really using Flash technology, or are they just calling their
>>old EEPROM technology "Flash" like Microchip is doing with the 16F83 and
>>16F84?  This is what's known as a "Marketing Breakthrough".
>
>You issue a page erase command to blank it.  You tell me.

Andy.  If you look through the EEPROM Spec, you'll see that you can use the
"Disabling Code-Protection" procedure to erase the all the EEPROM all at
once.  In my programmer, I use this command to erase all the EEPROM (even if
the CP bit isn't set) before programming.

Would this fit your definition as a "Flash Page Erase"?

Sorry, I'm not trying to be annoying or difficult (and probably failing),
but "Flash" is a really loose definition because of situations like above.
I agree that the "correct" definition is to have EEPROM cells arranged in
such a way that a group of them (ie a "page") can be erased; but this has
been blurred over time.

Actually, I like the use by Microchip of putting the "F" in the part number
to identify the EEPROM/Flash parts.  Now, if they'd only come up with a
16F73A...

myke

"I don't do anything that anybody else in good physical condition and
unlimited funds couldn't do" - Bruce Wayne